OM PRAKASH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE instant writ petition is listed for admission. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Counsels for the respective parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. After completing the arguments, written submissions were also filed.

(3.) WHEN the consolidation proceedings commenced Sri Tapsi, father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Phullan Prasad respondent no. 4 filed their objections in respect of plot no. 52 area 0.38 decimal and plot no. 54 area 0.04 decimal of Khata no. 29 situated in village Harraiya, Tappa Salempur, Pargana Salempur Majauli, District Deoria. In the basic year Khatauni, names of Mahatam and Ram Chandra Lal were recorded. Perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer shows that objector respondents adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Phullan Prasad and Mangal son of Dukhi deposed in favour of respondents and documentary evidence filed was extract of Khatauni 1302 Fasli, Fard Matabiqat pertaining to1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli, copy of map pertaining to the year 1916 -17 as well as map of 1883 -84. An Advocate Commissioner was also got appointed who submitted a report after making spot inspection on 12.10.1971. The Consolidation Officer himself had made spot inspection in presence of both the parties and report was dated 27.7.1971. The petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence but examined Ram Mahatam Lal as a witness. The Consolidation Officer recorded his finding that on plot no. 52 at the time of spot inspection he found abadi only in an area of 0.08 decimal and 0.06 decimal (0.14 decimal). On the remaining portion a house was standing as well as some trees but he recorded a finding that it can not be defined as 'abadi'. Thus the finding of the Consolidation Officer was that .14 decimal is abadi on plot no. 52 and remaining .24 decimal is not an abadi. So far the objections only for the said area was allowed and objection of Tapsi Lal was rejected for the remaining portion. An appeal was preferred by Tapsi and Phullan Prasad against the petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation examined extract of Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli only and confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Though he has recorded arguments raised on behalf of respondents that previous litigation had also taken place in respect of gata nos. 52 and 54 and it was held as abadi of the respondents but somehow due to mistake the names of the petitioners have been recorded over the said plots and finally rejected the appeal. A revision was preferred by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.1991.